Yet even if they took the offer the NHL published they would still have the best deal of the big four sports.

Yet if the players ended up with the worst deal of all 4 sports the NHL would still be a poorly run business that struggled to make money. Eventually they have to look in the mirror at who is responsible for their lack of success.

The NHL is a poorly run league with a lot of poorly run teams, their problems are not related to greedy players.

Why is the NHL poorly run with poorly run teams? Could it be because all the smart business people invest in teams and leagues that are profitable?

The problem is for about 25 teams the owners would be better off selling the team and investing their money elsewhere. Most of these owners bought their teams because they are fans of the sport. When your a fan of the sport you are also a fan of the players. When your a fan of the players your much more likely to overpay for their services and when it comes to CBA negotiations your much more likely to sign a deal that's better for the players than yourself.

So in short most of the leagues issues stem from a lack of profit and that is what they are trying to fix.

Why is the NHL poorly run with poorly run teams? Could it be because all the smart business people invest in teams and leagues that are profitable?

They lack leadership and vision at the top, are being held back by archaic thinking, they are reactionary instead of progressive and they treat their employees and customers poorly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrthebest

The problem is for about 25 teams the owners would be better off selling the team and investing their money elsewhere. Most of these owners bought their teams because they are fans of the sport. When your a fan of the sport you are also a fan of the players. When your a fan of the players your much more likely to overpay for their services and when it comes to CBA negotiations your much more likely to sign a deal that's better for the players than yourself.

Owners don't sign deals, they hire people to sign deals, or at least they should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrthebest

So in short most of the leagues issues stem from a lack of profit and that is what they are trying to fix.

Grinding your employees is not the only way to increase profit, the NHL just isn't smart enough to figure how else to do it.

Mark Recchi needs to shut his trap. Why would the players accept a deal that would reduce their contractual rights considerably? Not a chance. They're already giving up another 7% in HRR as is. What's next, guaranteed contracts?

The only money the players are claiming a right to is there on their contracts, along with their owners signature.

The CBA itself is yet another contract, one that supersedes all others. The players were entirely aware adjustments and/or amendments could be made subsequent to its expiration. To claim otherwise is disingenuous on behalf of the players. No one is arguing the owners are absent of blame, and I certainly agree they need to abandon these "old boy's club" ways. However, the players are equally at fault for the persistence of this lockout.

Personally, were I the PA. My counteroffer would be in the vicinity of: $250-300m in the "make whole" arrangement and acceptance of the 5% variation clause on contracts. If they insist on capped contract length, I counter with lower UFA status.

What you don't seem to realize is owners of businesses are responsible for running that business effectively in order to make money. The NHL has left so much money on the table because of poor business decisions, both the league and teams, that have cost the players a lot of money. The NHL let the play in the league deteriorate for 10+ years, to the point where one of its biggest stars ever retired because of it and even huge fans didn't want to watch it. How much money is that costing players right now?

How much more money would both sides make if they had built the arena in the right city in Arizona?

How much money would both sides make if Columbus could have hired one good hockey man to run that side of their business in their existence?

How much money could both sides have made if Florida had made the playoffs more than 3 of the 18 seasons they've played?

etc, etc, etc

It's not up to the players to make the NHL money, that's what the suits are for.

How much more money they could have had under different scenarios is questionable, and rather irrelevant because it's not there anyway. Both owners and players agreed that expanding the league into those types of places was important, and one of the NHLPA's members is a loud voice for keeping a team in Phoenix.

Phoenix is a huge place. Columbus has a lot more problems than just bad GMs. And if Florida had made the playoffs, the league actually probably would have had less revenue, since that would have taken away playoff revenue from another team that makes more money. It's not the league's job to make sure certain teams win.

If we didn't get these teams, then we probably get no teams, and the NHLPA loses jobs and money.

Having teams in these places isn't really hurting the players anyway. It's helping them. The owners have been footing the losses and increased transportation costs to increase the revenue pie resulting in more money for the players.

[MOD] how would not having these teams have altered the TV contract?

I'm not sure what you're talking about in reference to deteriorating play.

Yes, the "suits" are in charge of making sure the business can be profitable. And that is exactly what they are trying to do and exactly what the NHLPA is blocking. You increase profits by increasing revenue or cutting costs. Revenue has already been growing substantially, and there is not much more that they can do, so you need to cut costs (which have also been rising), at least down to the established industry standard.

Players are the only substantial costs you can cut.

You can maybe point to business decisions for certain individual teams as part of their struggles. But the league is not in financial stress because of business decisions. It is because of the system.

Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 11-15-2012 at 03:56 AM.
Reason: Not neccessary

Yet if the players ended up with the worst deal of all 4 sports the NHL would still be a poorly run business that struggled to make money. Eventually they have to look in the mirror at who is responsible for their lack of success.

Yet you give no reason for why they are poorly run.

And even if they were, too bad. Employees are at the mercy of how their employers run the business. You don't go up to some guy and say "Well, your revenue only went up 500 million, it should have gone up 600 million if everything went super-perfect like alllways happens in business, so I'm just going to take 60% of your revenues. Kthxbai."

Know why owners can do a lockout? Because most of them aren't making enough money to make actually having a season worth it.

Phoenix is a huge place. Columbus has a lot more problems than just bad GMs. And if Florida had made the playoffs, the league actually probably would have had less revenue, since that would have taken away playoff revenue from another team that makes more money. It's not the league's job to make sure certain teams win.

Teams were put in those markets to gain fans and increase TV viewership and grow the game in the US, terrible teams do not increase their fan base.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor

The CBA itself is yet another contract, one that supersedes all others. The players were entirely aware adjustments and/or amendments could be made subsequent to its expiration. To claim otherwise is disingenuous on behalf of the players.

I don't believe that agreeing to tie your contract to HRR means that you should be willing to give the owners however much they need back to satisfy them. This attitude that because the players agreed to escrow entitles owners to now come back for more on contracts that were just signed really surprises me.

Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 11-15-2012 at 03:56 AM.
Reason: Not neccessary

Teams were put in those markets to gain fans and increase TV viewership and grow the game in the US, terrible teams do not increase their fan base.

Well, a team anywhere, good or bad, increases a fan base. But you're right, a winning team is very important to gain that starting ground. So why do you want to move these teams that haven't had a chance yet to grow significant roots in their area?

BTW, teams aren't only bad because of bad business decisions.

And even if they were, not sure what makes you think the players would do any better, or even have the right to have any say in the matter in the first place.

And even if they were, too bad. Employees are at the mercy of how their employers run the business. You don't go up to some guy and say "Well, your revenue only went up 500 million, it should have gone up 600 million if everything went super-perfect like alllways happens in business, so I'm just going to take 60% of your revenues. Kthxbai."

Know why owners can do a lockout? Because most of them aren't making enough money to make actually having a season worth it.

I gave examples of why teams and the league are poorly run.

If my boss was making poor business decisions that were costing him money and asking me to take a pay cut to make up for it, I wouldn't be happy.

Know why owners are losing money? Because they don't run their teams or the league well.

I don't believe that agreeing to tie your contract to HRR means that you should be willing to give the owners however much they need back to satisfy them. This attitude that because the players agreed to escrow entitles owners to now come back for more on contracts that were just signed really surprises me.

No, keeping the league healthy entitles the owners to come back and rectify the percentages.

The contracts were never guaranteed for the dollar amount. They were X dollars subject to a 57% split, and every single one of those players knew what their contract meant. They already cheated the system enough by taking so much money up front and in bonuses.

Well, a team anywhere, good or bad, increases a fan base. But you're right, a winning team is very important to gain that starting ground. So why do you want to move these teams that haven't had a chance yet to grow significant roots in their area?

BTW, teams aren't only bad because of bad business decisions.

And even if they were, not sure what makes you think the players would do any better, or even have the right to have any say in the matter in the first place.

I didn't suggest any team move, I suggested they run their teams better.

Teams are bad because they hire bad GM's to run their hockey ops, that's a poor business decision.

I'm not sure what makes you think the players should continue to give back to help owners that aren't helping themselves.

If my boss was making poor business decisions that were costing him money and asking me to take a pay cut to make up for it, I wouldn't be happy.

Know why owners are losing money? Because they don't run their teams or the league well.

You did not give any examples of why the league is poorly run. You gave examples about individual teams, and even those were bogus.

Next time your employer doubles your salary over 7 years and then says "we're not financially stable, so I will pay you your current rate for 2 more years. Then, if revenues have grown enough, your pay will continue to go up, and if revenues drop, you will take a small cut in your pay", and you go up to him and tell him to suck it, then let me know how long you keep your job.

No, keeping the league healthy entitles the owners to come back and rectify the percentages.

The league is not and has not been healthy. The last cba was going to rectify it, and the one before that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whydidijoin

The contracts were never guaranteed for the dollar amount. They were X dollars subject to a 57% split, and every single one of those players knew what their contract meant. They already cheated the system enough by taking so much money up front and in bonuses.

No, they weren't guaranteed for the dollar amount but that doesn't mean they have to accept whatever the league is offering.

They cheated the system by accepting contracts that were offered by these teams? That is ass backwards.

I didn't suggest any team move, I suggested they run their teams better.

Teams are bad because they hire bad GM's to run their hockey ops, that's a poor business decision.

I'm not sure what makes you think the players should continue to give back to help owners that aren't helping themselves.

You cannot blame a league where 14 of the teams are guaranteed to not make the playoffs, because 14 teams didn't make the playoffs.

Teams are also not always bad because of poor business decisions. That is an incredibly short-sighted view.

There are always going to be some teams that are good and some teams that are bad. Everybody can't be good. And who is good and who is bad is not up to the league. The problem is more about the league as a whole being financially unstable, not so much any individual team. In fact, by having the unpopular and cheap teams be bad, revenues are higher in the short term, which further benefits the players.

Also, the owners aren't taking anything from the players. They are simply willing to give them less for the financial stability of the league and individual teams, which is in the long term benefit of the players.

Next time your employer doubles your salary over 7 years and then says "we're not financially stable, so I will pay you your current rate for 2 more years. Then, if revenues have grown enough, your pay will continue to go up, and if revenues drop, you will take a small cut in your pay", and you go up to him and tell him to suck it, then let me know how long you keep your job.

Whose salary has doubled (besides Gary's)? The best players in the league were making more money 7 years ago then the best players now.

The league is not and has not been healthy. The last cba was going to rectify it, and the one before that.

The league is healthier now than it was before those lockouts.

The last lockout probably would have been more of an impact, but transportation costs have risen significantly, and the global recession hurt a lot. Not to mention the player share went from 54% to 57% because revenue grew so fast (even though profits weren't).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr

No, they weren't guaranteed for the dollar amount but that doesn't mean they have to accept whatever the league is offering.

They cheated the system by accepting contracts that were offered by these teams? That is ass backwards.

If they ever want to play in the NHL again, they essentially do just have to accept what the league is offering.

What makes you think the teams are the ones offering these contract terms? How do you know it wasn't the players demanding bonus money, 15 years, front loading, etc. and saying "sign it or I go to ____". In fact, that is likely exactly what happened, and now the players want to act the victims.

You cannot blame a league where 14 of the teams are guaranteed to not make the playoffs, because 14 teams didn't make the playoffs.

Not everyone can make the playoffs every year, that doesn't mean it's ok to make it 3 times in 18 years and cry because you're losing money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whydidijoin

Teams are also not always bad because of poor business decisions. That is an incredibly short-sighted view.

Examples?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whydidijoin

There are always going to be some teams that are good and some teams that are bad. Everybody can't be good. And who is good and who is bad is not up to the league. The problem is more about the league as a whole being financially unstable, not so much any individual team. In fact, by having the unpopular and cheap teams be bad, revenues are higher in the short term, which further benefits the players.

This is short sighted. Every year some teams are going to be good and some bad, it's only a problem when you're one of the bad teams every year. Long term growing the game in those markets is the only way owners and players are going to maximize their earnings. The league as a whole is making money, I think you're confused on that issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whydidijoin

Also, the owners aren't taking anything from the players. They are simply willing to give them less for the financial stability of the league and individual teams.

You did not give any examples of why the league is poorly run. You gave examples about individual teams, and even those were bogus.

bogus how?

Have you heard of the dead puck era? Did you know Mario Lemieux retired because of it? The league let the on ice product go for **** for 10+ years without doing anything about it. 10 years of a poor product makes for little growth and a huge loss of potential profit.

Not everyone can make the playoffs every year, that doesn't mean it's ok to make it 3 times in 18 years and cry because you're losing money.

The thing is, if it was just that one team, and the loss of money was a result of missing the playoffs, then you have a better case. But it's not. It is majority of the league in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr

Examples?

Most of the bad teams right now. There are very few bad GMs in the league right now, and even the worst one is a better option than any player and most people. Most bad outcomes are a result of bad luck or the general phasing of teams.

Sports management is a game of risks. Some pay off, some don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr

This is short sighted. Every year some team are going to be good and some bad, it's only a problem when you're one of the bad teams every year. Long term growing the game in those markets is the only way owners and players are going to maximize their earnings. The league as a whole is making money, I think you're confused on that issue.

In terms of the league as a whole, it still doesn't matter if the one team is bad every year. Except if that results in loss of fan-base. But even then, it is not the league job to artificially create winners and losers. Otherwise, we lose the entire heart of sport.

And a 3.3 billion dollar revenue business making around 150 million in profits, mostly from 2-3 teams, is not financially stable.